There are few things that annoy me more about US political culture than the use of the term “socialism” as a scare tactic, since hardly any of these people really know what socialism is anyway, and it is silly to try to frighten people with the word. Even if someone in the US were talking about socialism, they wouldn’t be talking about Soviet style socialism anyway.
Recently I was discussing this with some other US citizens, and they informed me that what is referred to in the US as Single payer healthcare is not being considered. Single payer healthcare means that there is only one insurer- which would be the US government or another public entity. This idea is not being considered now.
But even this proposal is not socialized medicine. Why? Think about it… what is the most important thing about medical care- the hospital, the service of the doctors and nurses, the procedures, the medicine etc. Under this single payer plan, all of these things would still be provided by private (i.e. non- government) entities, the same as they are now. The only thing that would be “socialized” would be the insurance part. The actual production of healthcare would still be private (i.e. capitalist).
Ok, so the single payer plan is not socialism. And the single payer plan is not even being considered now (its considered to be too extreme or radical.) So how can the Obama administration’s proposal be considered socialism? All the Obama proposal does is create a government provided insurance scheme which would compete with private insurance companies. Personally I think it is a good idea- because these greedy insurance companies which have been screwing US citizens for the last ?? years will finally have some real competition and may have to offer decent prices! But having a government insurance provider competing with private providers is not even close to socialized medicine.
And it is not even comparable to the Canadian system, so discussions of the Canadian system are totally irrelevant!
The Obama administration’s proposal is actually quite moderate (reflecting a need to compromise with those who really have the power in this system). The following document has a basic description of the proposal. (See this link)
According to the Wikipedia entry on healthcare reform in the US, under the Obama proposal, “Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either.” This means insurance companies could not refuse to insure people (one of the main cruelties of the current system), and they could not force people to pay ridiculously high sums to get health insurance (my father recently told me he had to pay $24,000 per year just for health insurance, before he was old enough to be covered by Medicare.)
What is really going on here seems clear to me- the big businesses that are making a lot of money out of the current system are totally propagandizing the debate, with the willing assistance of media like FOX News. Normal people, who don’t have the time or energy to investigate for themselves are falling for the scare tactics. Just as an example, see Sarah Palin referring to the Obama plan as “evil” (at this link).
You Americans who are reading this- this is going to be the last chance in a long time to fix this system. In case you are not aware of it, the rest of the developed world is laughing at us, and wondering why we are so uncivilized that we can’t even provide a just and humane system of healthcare for our citizens!
Don’t fall for the propaganda. The Obama administration proposal is not socialism. Its nothing like Canada’s system, so Canada’s system is irrelevant. The proposal is a moderate one which would make some improvements in the system to make it more affordable and less wasteful.
Take an hour and do a little research before making up your mind… now is the time to make some improvements.
I found your blog essay via a Google search on: “Are Obama’s health care proposals socialist?”. This, after encountering an ever greater level of labeling of “Socialist” at a recent Republican rally against health care reform held here in North Texas. In any case, I found your comments to be insightful and quite accurate.
In witnessing the hysteria from the political Right over health care reform, I have come to appreciate even more the benefits the Republicans derive from the groundwork of fear and divisiveness they have nurtured over the past couple of decades. Demonizing the term “Socialist” is just one small component of this. Of course people don’t know what it means…. but in their reptilian brains they comprehend that it’s something very, very bad and threatening. From the Republican perspective, that’s all they need to understand.
This past Monday, I attended a public “forum” on health care options sponsored by four local North Texas U.S. Congressmen (all Republicans). There was essentially no substantive exchange of information regarding health care… It was mostly a demonization of perceived threats from “the enemy within” (the Democrats). This is so ironic, because there’s not that much politically separating the Democrats & Republicans…. but the Republicans need someone to hate & fear, and since the Commies have disappeared, the Democrats (and their allies) are now it.. and the word “Socialist” has been plugged in where “Commie” used to be.
It’s evident to me that our Republican leadership is happy with health care the way it is, and they want to ensure that the voters see it that way as well. Their core electorate and key donors apparently have all the health care they need or want. Millions of Americans have grown rich on our present system, and have no incentive for reform. Such is the foundation of the Republican approach to health care, in my view. The challenge they face is how to persuade more than 50% of the populace to act against their own self-interests by fighting to maintain our present system.
Turns out, this is a “piece of cake”. In fact, it’s deja vu all over again! In 2003, the Republicans faced a similar challenge to persuade more than 50% of the voters to support our invasion Iraq, which bankrupted the treasury, killed 4200+ Americans, earned us international contempt, while offering no tangible benefit to the country as a whole. How to sell the public on this plan?
. Then, as now, they rely largely on lies & deception, but equally important is reaping the bountiful harvest of fear, loathing, and mistrust nurtured over the past decades. In the Republican view, our government (which they simultaneously love and hate), is not a beneficial agent for good, but a parasitic force of evil that must be fought against at all cost. The government cannot do anything well, in their view, and the free market will provide the best solutions in all cases.
The mostly Republican Tea Partyist audience roared its contempt at the specter of government waste in the proposed Democratic initiatives, while blissfully ignoring the colossal waste of our current system, which was spawned by the venerated free market. Audience members and Congressmen alike regurgitated one of the most popular of the current “factoids” of the day… a ludicrous claim that 85% of Americans are happy with our current health care system, and that the Democrats seek to screw the 85% in a misguided effort to meet the needs of the remaining 15%. It is evident that the manufactured threat of imaginary Socialism is perceived as a greater perceived risk than the actual failings of our current system. How terribly sad.
We will get exactly the quality of health care system we deserve, while wallowing in our pigsty of abject ignorance. It’s no wonder the Right wing is currently “up in arms” about President Obama addressing our nation’s school children to encourage them to complete their education. An educated electorate is the Republican’s worst nightmare. Obama is just a temporary annoyance, but an educated electorate would pose a persistent threat.
By: Jeffrey Levine on Thursday, 3 September, 2009
at 2:14 pm
Capitalism is the idea of allowing the free market to remain free from government intervention. That means the gov’t can’t compete with other insurance companies because it has an unfair advantage. It doesn’t need to make a profit because if it runs out of money it can just raise taxes even higher while the private insurance companies won’t be able to lower prices enough without losing money. That means gov’t is left as the only viable option. Besides that, those people who want to choose an insurance other than the gov’t (since in a non-socialist country, you should be able to not choose the gov’t) they will still have to pay for the gov’t insurance program through taxes! It’s not a marketplace for insurance; it’s you pay for gov’t health insurance and you can pay extra if you’d like.
But let’s now take the idea that health care is a right of man. Gov’t’s job is after all to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of every citizen; would that not include health care? This is a very good point. However, I believe that national healthcare is the wrong way to do it. National healthcare will run insurance companies out of business, decrease the quality of health care–if you dont believe me, there is an article by IBD that claims that 45% of all docs will consider quitting if nat’l healthcare passes which obviously will lower quality and that’s just 1 example, and it’ll raise taxes for the rich (aka the people who give you a job–well until he no longer had enough money after taxes). A much better option, I believe, is to initiate tort reform. Neurologists have to pay nearly a quarter of a million dollars every year for malpractice insurance. Many doctors don’t pracitice at all due to fear of malpractice lawasuits. And finally, doctors must engage in preventive healthcare to avoid malpractice charges. If doctors don’t have t pay so much in malpractice insurance they dont have to charge as much cuz they’ll be making the same amount. If more docs practice cuz they’re no longer afraid of lawsuits, that increases competition and drives prices down. If docs don’t have to engage in defensive healthcare, they don’t have to charge so much for unnecessary tests and other stuff. Tort reform will make healthcare much more affordable.
Second, insurance companies can only provide for people within their state. Allow people to buy insurance across state borders and every state’s insurance competition will increase 50x over (50 states lol). The more competition, the lower the prices–that’s how a truly free capitalist market works.
These 2 are the major reforms that must occur that will greatly enhance the affordability of healthcare while preventing the severe costs of gov’t nat’l healthcare. If you disagree with me or would like something explained, shoot me an email and I’d love to think through this nat’l healthcare debate: jfballa1723@yahoo.com!
By: Joe on Tuesday, 29 September, 2009
at 1:22 am
Joe, just a quick reply.
Your comment has made me realize I need to check more facts. I guess this kind of debate just draws you in! For example you said that insurance companies cannot compete across state lines. Is that true? I find that hard to believe. I would also need to check your claim that doctors would quit.
I agree with you that tort reform is important and would help, but I think it would not be nearly enough on its own to reduce the costs to where they should be.
Another point I want to twist a little, is that you said “capitalism is letting the free market be without government intervention.” This is actually not really true. I would estimate 95-98% of economists recognize the need for some government intervention, they just disagree with how much. Even free market neo-liberalists think the government needs to play some minor role in the market. Keynesians, on the other hand, who are also capitalists, merely argue for a far greater role for the state in mediating the economy. So Capitalism does not mean that there is no government involvement in the economy in terms of regulations, money supply, et al.
I do value one of your arguments though which is when you said it will be unfair competition with private corporations. I hadn’t really thought of that point. I must say- according to my view of the USA, I think that the government health insurance would not put the companies out of business. Why? Because I think the corporations are the ones really ‘running the show’ in the USA. They are the real power. Yes, government elites, and military elites also have power, but when it comes down to it, corporate power is the real dominant power. Before all the insurance companies go out of business, you can be sure there would be serious wailing and protesting from the corporate sectors.
I have to say, in this particular issue, I think the Republicans are basically express what the insurance companies and drug companies want. The Republicans in this debate, in my view, are the mouthpiece of the corporate establishment.
But still, it is true that government competing with a business is like mixing apples and oranges. Maybe this is a reason why the co-operative solution is also a good one. I have long thought that cooperatives are a good idea, and perhaps this is one application of that structure.
Will probably update this reply as I have other thoughts as well.
Thanks for your comment! I need to keep up better with replying.
Jeffrey, I hope to reply soon to your comment as well.
By: Patrick Mosolf on Saturday, 3 October, 2009
at 7:25 pm